Confirm an import with a mandatory idempotency key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| import_id | Yes | Contact import ID | |
| idempotency_key | Yes | Unique confirmation key | |
| organization_id | Yes | Active organization ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the schema's requirement that an idempotency key is mandatory and says nothing about side effects, whether the confirmation triggers processing, reversibility, failure behavior, or what response to expect. The idempotency semantics are implied but not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is concise, but it is so terse that it sacrifices substantive context, making it efficient yet minimally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the import-confirmation workflow, prerequisites, and consequences. It does none of that; an agent must infer almost everything from the tool name and sibling list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the prose. The description adds no meaning beyond 'mandatory,' which is already captured by the required array; it doesn't clarify key format, generation, or how it relates to the import.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Confirm'), a specific resource ('an import'), and highlights the mandatory idempotency key, so an agent can tell this is not a get/preview/list operation. However, it doesn't explain what confirming actually does (e.g., finalizing an import) and doesn't explicitly distinguish it from contact_import_preview or contact_import_get, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like contact_import_preview, contact_import_get, or contact_imports. The word 'Confirm' implies a later stage in an import workflow, but no prerequisites, workflow position, or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most resource CRUD sets are distinct, but the server duplicates entire CRM activity/task tool groups under crm_* and platform_crm_* with identical descriptions, so an agent cannot tell which set to call. Additional overlap exists around identity/context (me, context, platform_context, organizations) and exports (contacts_export vs data_export_create).
Names generally follow commsharbor_<resource>_<action>, but list endpoints are split between plural nouns (audiences, webhooks) and *_list suffixes (crm_activities_list), and some tools use bare nouns or verbs (health, me, context, logout). The mixed conventions are readable but not fully predictable.
141 tools is far beyond a coherent surface for an agent to select from. Even with a broad CRM/email platform scope, the set should be consolidated, namespaced more aggressively, or split into multiple focused servers.
Coverage is broad: campaigns, templates, audiences, CRM objects, imports/exports, auth, billing, domains, webhooks, and suppressions all have lifecycle tools. Gaps like suppression deletion, webhook update, and a non-platform leads group are minor relative to the overall surface, though the duplicate platform sets muddy completeness.